Share this article

In a further twist, another former FA chairman, Greg Dyke, has criticised FA Council members whose opposition led to the collapse of the Wembley sale as ‘tosspots who don’t want change.’

Bernstein told the BBC: ‘There is not anywhere near enough money at the bottom end of our game — grassroots has been neglected. We are completely out of balance in this country.

‘The Premier League does pay some monies across to other parts of football, but it is nowhere near enough. My view has consistently been that the Premier League should be levied, money should go to the FA, which would be distributed to the wider game and which would make the selling of Wembley unnecessary.

‘A Premier League tax if you like. It is a major, major issue. It is something that should be explored and, if necessary, looked at by Government.’

Since 2000, the Premier League have paid more than £200m into grassroots projects via the Football Foundation, but that is a tiny fraction of the money generated by English football’s top flight in television rights deals.

The sale of Wembley Stadium has fallen through after an offer of £600million was withdrawn

Former England defender Gary Neville, who was fiercely opposed to the Wembley sale, suggested taxing agents when they broker transfer deals.

And Dyke told The Times: ‘If the FA had the guts they could put a levy on the Premier League clubs for every time they did a transfer or paid an agent, but it would lead to a real bust-up with the clubs. I’m not sure they do have the guts to do that.’

But FA chief executive Martin Glenn scoffed at the idea. In an interview with The Evening Standard, Glenn said: ‘Gary Neville would say put a tax on agents and a windfall tax on the Premier League. Good luck with that.’

Glenn defended the FA against criticism for exploring the deal with Khan and rejected accusations that they did not have a clear strategy for how the money raised would be distributed.

Shahid Khan has not ruled out returning for Wembley, but his offer is off the table for now

‘Critics of the deal cite the spending plans, claiming there were always more questions to be asked,’ he said. ‘That’s very unfair. The proposal was really clear. So, when people say there wasn’t a way to spend it intelligently, they are wrong. They just didn’t want the deal to happen.

‘We knew we had a way, from over 20 years of intelligently investing money, which was very exciting. I feel proud about how we put that plan together.’

Glenn said he had no intention of quitting despite his passion for the deal and the disappointment of seeing Khan pull out.

‘Most CEOs get fired,’ said Glenn. ‘The syndrome seems to be you keep your nose clean, don’t do much and then a reforming chairman comes in and says, “Hang on, what’s been going on for the last few years?” Or you push the needle and face resistance.

‘I’ve never worked in an organisation where people have welcomed change. The FA are a bit more political, because you have stakeholders.’

Khan said that his £600m offer was 'seen as more divisive than it was anticipated to be'